ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
And exactly "what" supernatural would that be?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists: Here's your chance
- Thread starter The_Evelyonian
- Start date
David M
Well-Known Member
Everywhere, there is no evidence that points to creationism outside interpretations of religious texts.
You mean the flagellum that exists in different versions in different bacteria with protiens not present in some flagella that are present in others? The flagella whose parts have analogs with other structures in the cell?
Where is this "proof", this is the place to present it if you have any.
And exactly "what" supernatural would that be?
I think Jolly's right.
First truth is evidence independent. In stone age, there's no evidence for the presence of black holes, it's far from saying that black holes did not exist in stone age.
Evidence is just for a human brain to recognise a truth (or rather for a belief system to believe that it is the truth). Something is evident to one may not be evident enough to someone else, because they possess a diffferent belief systems (brains).
Science is abit special. Science is the discovery of natural rules which predicts precisely for our brain/belief system to reckon them as the truth. Say, water decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen, this chemical rule allows you to predict precisely that water everywhere behaves so. You can predict this result before every single experiment, and every single experience when set up correctly can hardly falsify your prediction by using the rule. The rule is thus reckoned by human brains/belief systems as the truth.
Evidence is thus not a requirement by science. Evidence is a requirement by human brains because of human failure in dealing with the past. That is, we can't know the past for sure, that's why we need evidence to attempt to approach what truly happened. Humans brains/belief systems are thus required to subjectively give out mainly verbal explanations on how to interpret the so-called evidence presented. Various brains may give out various explanations. Perhaps till a certain consensus is reached by a certain group of brains. Then one of the results will be accepted as the 'truth'.
No doubt it is an efficient approach in reality for humans who are futile about the past to try to reach the truth. The limitation is that, no matter how evident things seem to be, there's still a chance that it's not a truth. And the approach itself relies heavily on verbal explanation from the subjective human brains, instead of the establishment of testable scientific rules.
Such an approach is commonly used in human law courts. Things are very evident to certain jury members may not be that evident to other jury members. A consensus will be reached and the case is ruled by the majority of the chosen jury members (human brains). Yet there will be innocents no matter how evident the cases are. And it's not science anyway. It is rather an efficient and practical method to reach truth, but unlike science nothing is guarranteed. Even when all the jury members voted guilty, there is still innocents. In the end, such a system is faith-based, which says "we believe at best that it is the case/truth".
This is not science because it doesn't bear the characteristic of preditability, falsifyability and repeated testability as required by the existing natural scientific rules discovered.
At most ToE is just to reflect one of the possibilities. Is it possible that God created everything in a way we don't know? Noone can rule out that possibility. At the same time, it says that in case God created everything, ToE can never find the truth. It says that it is possible that ToE is not true (in case God created everything). And it's not scientific at the moment anyway. ID is not scientific just as ToE, yet it bears a chance to find out the truth in case God created everything.
David M
Well-Known Member
No, evolution is a scientific fact. The change in allele frequencies in a population over time is an observed fact. Speciation is an observed fact.
The pattern of morphology in living species is an oberved fact, the pattern of genes in species that matches the phylogeny derived from morphology is an observed fact. The patterns in the fossil record that matches both of these is an observed fact.
Species evolve over time, that is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution explains the reason behind these observed facts.
Its ruled out of science because by definition the supernatural cannot be detected, tested and replicated. If it could be then it would not be supernatural. Science can test claims of supernatural effects because they do have effects, but the entity itself cannot be tested.
So science can show that there was no Noachian flood and that prayer has no effect, it cannot make any statement on the existence of a deity.
If you cannot detect or validate the existence of a supernatural entity then no claim can be made that any specific entity is involved, it becomes equally valid to posit the Christian deity as a Hindu one or leprechauns.
Last edited:
think that there are serveral points needed to be clarified here. What viewed or perceived by humans as the so-called 'evolution' can actually be anything.
1. adaptation vs evolution
I try to view this from the designer's point of view (just trying as i am by no means anywhere near His mind). It is quite possible that the low end organisms such as bectira can adapt in a way viewed by the evolutionists as 'evolution'. That is for simple organisms, millions of random mutations can lead to one beneficial mutation and when this change is subject to natural selection, a 'evolution' is thus resulted. Yet this perhaps is just one of the many ways how a simple organisms adapt themselves into the environment.
Other possible way is that these organisms might have already built-in mechanism to accelarate genetic re-organization when certain environmental extremes are met. To simply put, God may have designed such a built-in process for organisms to adapt the extreme conditions more easily and smoothly, random mutation is just not good enough.
So the question here is, other than random mutation is there any other cases are studied to rule out the possibility that other adaptation mechanism exists in these simple becteria? That is, are you sure that the becteria can only subject themselves to the 'mutation followed by natural selection' process. Have you tested other extreme cases which might (or might not) possibly trigger the becteria's adaptation process instead of the 'evolution' process?
2. Becteria vs more complicated organisms (such as apes?!)
Now if you can draw your conclusion here that evolution exists in becterias, how can you say that it also exists in other living beings. Please notice that 'because evolution exists in becteria, it must exist in, say, apes', this statement is a fallacy. What can be observed in becteria may or may not (you need to prove) give any hint on more complicated organisms, unless you discovered a set of common natural rules which is applicable to all organisms alike. For instance, if you discovered that under -20 celcius degree, 80% humidity, all living cells will change from one state to another, then and only then you can extend your conclusion to other species than the becteria. Before that, if you find that evolution occurs in becteria, then it occurs only to becteria, no less no more.
Moreover, it is possble that a working mechanism already exists in high end creatures that extreme environment may trigger the adaptation process instead of the evolution process to allow animals to finish their adaptation within several generations.
3. Now vs history
Now if you discovered the required set of scientific rules which allows you to conclude that more complicated species are also subject themselves to 'evolution', you need to find a way to prove that history DOES evolves this way. Now you may need to figure out what evolves to what, that is, what and under what temperature and humidity and how long it takes to evolve to what. Say, wolves under -20 degree celcius and 80% humidity and after 100 million years, they evolves to dogs...and so on.
This is what science is supposed to be. ToE at the moment is a joke.
1. adaptation vs evolution
I try to view this from the designer's point of view (just trying as i am by no means anywhere near His mind). It is quite possible that the low end organisms such as bectira can adapt in a way viewed by the evolutionists as 'evolution'. That is for simple organisms, millions of random mutations can lead to one beneficial mutation and when this change is subject to natural selection, a 'evolution' is thus resulted. Yet this perhaps is just one of the many ways how a simple organisms adapt themselves into the environment.
Other possible way is that these organisms might have already built-in mechanism to accelarate genetic re-organization when certain environmental extremes are met. To simply put, God may have designed such a built-in process for organisms to adapt the extreme conditions more easily and smoothly, random mutation is just not good enough.
So the question here is, other than random mutation is there any other cases are studied to rule out the possibility that other adaptation mechanism exists in these simple becteria? That is, are you sure that the becteria can only subject themselves to the 'mutation followed by natural selection' process. Have you tested other extreme cases which might (or might not) possibly trigger the becteria's adaptation process instead of the 'evolution' process?
2. Becteria vs more complicated organisms (such as apes?!)
Now if you can draw your conclusion here that evolution exists in becterias, how can you say that it also exists in other living beings. Please notice that 'because evolution exists in becteria, it must exist in, say, apes', this statement is a fallacy. What can be observed in becteria may or may not (you need to prove) give any hint on more complicated organisms, unless you discovered a set of common natural rules which is applicable to all organisms alike. For instance, if you discovered that under -20 celcius degree, 80% humidity, all living cells will change from one state to another, then and only then you can extend your conclusion to other species than the becteria. Before that, if you find that evolution occurs in becteria, then it occurs only to becteria, no less no more.
Moreover, it is possble that a working mechanism already exists in high end creatures that extreme environment may trigger the adaptation process instead of the evolution process to allow animals to finish their adaptation within several generations.
3. Now vs history
Now if you discovered the required set of scientific rules which allows you to conclude that more complicated species are also subject themselves to 'evolution', you need to find a way to prove that history DOES evolves this way. Now you may need to figure out what evolves to what, that is, what and under what temperature and humidity and how long it takes to evolve to what. Say, wolves under -20 degree celcius and 80% humidity and after 100 million years, they evolves to dogs...and so on.
This is what science is supposed to be. ToE at the moment is a joke.
David M
Well-Known Member
The mechanisms have been extensively studied, the recent long term experiment by Lenski demonstrated that traits that do not exist in ancestor populations can definitely arise in their descendants. And its not all of their descendants even thoug h they are subject to the same potential for "adaption" but only in some of those descendants via random mutation and natural selection.
Evolution has been observed in both vertebrates and invertebrates so it is already an observed fact that "more complicated" organisms evolve.
And the evidence for this magic barrier is what? All life forms on earth use the same imperfect replicator (DNA) as the mechanism for inheritance.
We have discovered the "scientific rules" that show that "complicated species" evolve, as well as observing them evolve. All life uses the same imperfect replicator as the basis for inheritance.
The evidence from genetics, morphology and the fossil record absolutely shows that life evolved through history.
Only those who deny the overwhelming evidence make the claim that ToE is a joke, it has more evidence than any other scientific theory.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But you cannot assert something to be true without evidence. You cannot assert that something is true on the proviso that "there may be evidence of it in the future" - that makes no sense. The point is not to entirely dismiss the possibility of something existing - it's to not conclude it's existence until evidence has been obtained and verified.
Which is why we have the scientific method, which uses peer review to obtain the most objective viewpoint possible. Hence, it is the most reliable means by which we can establish fact from fiction. Case in point: If you and a friend were having an argument over the colour of a car, you might say that it's green and he might say it is blue. Since only the two of you are involved it's near impossible to distinguish who is correct. However, you both decide to get the opinions of hundreds of other people - some of whom are specialists in pigmentation, cars, paint, etc. and all examine the car in millions of different ways and unanimously assert that the car is green.
Except it's not a belief, it's an observation. There's a difference to accepting something (based on evidence) and believing in something (which requires a lack of evidence).
Once again, you're equating acceptance of evidence with belief.
And no matter how evident things seem to be, there is a possibility that your house is made of cake. Basically, your whole argument here is based on entirely ignoring evidence.
It's not a belief if the people involved are presented with the evidence necessary to reach a conclusion. Belief is holding something to be true in spite of an absence of evidence.
Now you're just talking nonsense. Once again, your entire argument relies upon ignoring any and all evidence in order to leap onto your "it is still possible God could of done it" argument.
Sorry, but unless all that evidence suddenly ups and vanishes your argument is basically just an argument from ignorance.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
How about formation of proteins within cells. No one knows how (the 'rules' to protein formation) a protein folds from the time it is made as a polypeptide(s) to the time in conforms into its 3-dimensional shape. The best scientists can do is say a particular region will most likely conform to this secondary structure, but that isn't even close to understanding how the tertiary or quaternary structure form inside chaperonins.
There, it's easy to prove creation with up to date, modern science.
How does this evidence support your hypothesis? It might help if you formulate your hypothesis first. Is your hypothesis that God magically poofed two of each "kind" into existence several thousand years ago, or something else?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You should have read a few posts further... RedOne was Poe-ing.
wa:do
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
There is no proof for either side of the debate.If there was we'd be discussing facts rather than theories. The most convincing evidence put forward can be debated as to its' validity in supporting any premise for either side. Anyway if God wanted us to follow by faith at this time I guess he'll make sure neither side is prooven beyond doubt untill the time is right.
While searching this topic on the net I found some scientist that said we had hidden genes and he reckons he has prooved we come from aliens. It goes on and on.
The platypus shares 82% of its genes with the human, mouse, dog possum & chicken genomes. So sharing 96% with primates is not proof. As no creature has been found at around 98-99% (and surely there should be) that fact goes to the creation argument.
While searching this topic on the net I found some scientist that said we had hidden genes and he reckons he has prooved we come from aliens. It goes on and on.
The platypus shares 82% of its genes with the human, mouse, dog possum & chicken genomes. So sharing 96% with primates is not proof. As no creature has been found at around 98-99% (and surely there should be) that fact goes to the creation argument.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
You're actually 100% right here, but not in the way you think you are. Nothing is ever proven in science. The earth revolving around the sun is no more proven than evolution. Less so, i believe, though i'm not sure how one would quantify that.
That said, we are discussing facts. The change in allele frequencies over sequential generations that leads to speciation is an observed fact. It happens.
We don't really debate evolution here. It would be like debating gravity. If you want to know about evolution, or the scientific method, we will be more than happy to explain it to you. Most likely your refusal to accept evolutionary theory is based in a poor understanding of it. I'm not trying to be insulting with that, most people don't have a good grasp on the theory.
Could you link us to this article, and the some of the others you read? I'm sure it would be an interesting read. You should base your opinion on peer-reviewed articles, however, and i suspect that isn't one.
We share 99.8% of our DNA with other humans of other ethnicities, 99% with homo neanderthalensis, ~98-99% with older hominid species (homo erectus, homo habilis), and ~96% with chimps.
Human evolutionary genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]
And here's an interesting video by Roman Catholic biologist Ken Miller showing the genetic link between humans and chimps.
You claim here is simply not true. By far only macro-evolution in the bacteria level is accepted as observed and experimented, that's from the evolutionists' point of view. To make it obivous, factors such as temperature, humidity and so forth are direct factors affecting evolution (i.e. if evolution exists), yet they are never included into any "scientific rules" claimed by you. So unless you work out how those directly factors affect evolution, you can never bring your "scientific rules" into something with predictability and fasifyability.
But you cannot assert something to be true without evidence. You cannot assert that something is true on the proviso that "there may be evidence of it in the future" - that makes no sense. The point is not to entirely dismiss the possibility of something existing - it's to not conclude it's existence until evidence has been obtained and verified.
Which is why we have the scientific method, which uses peer review to obtain the most objective viewpoint possible. Hence, it is the most reliable means by which we can establish fact from fiction. Case in point: If you and a friend were having an argument over the colour of a car, you might say that it's green and he might say it is blue. Since only the two of you are involved it's near impossible to distinguish who is correct. However, you both decide to get the opinions of hundreds of other people - some of whom are specialists in pigmentation, cars, paint, etc. and all examine the car in millions of different ways and unanimously assert that the car is green.
Except it's not a belief, it's an observation. There's a difference to accepting something (based on evidence) and believing in something (which requires a lack of evidence).
Once again, you're equating acceptance of evidence with belief.
And no matter how evident things seem to be, there is a possibility that your house is made of cake. Basically, your whole argument here is based on entirely ignoring evidence.
It's not a belief if the people involved are presented with the evidence necessary to reach a conclusion. Belief is holding something to be true in spite of an absence of evidence.
Now you're just talking nonsense. Once again, your entire argument relies upon ignoring any and all evidence in order to leap onto your "it is still possible God could of done it" argument.
Sorry, but unless all that evidence suddenly ups and vanishes your argument is basically just an argument from ignorance.
You don't seem to get the point, I am not asking you to give up everything which is thought to be evidence. I am telling you that your way of approaching truth cannot be with 100% coverage. It's still subject to mistakes. It is a fallacy to think that an efficient tool must be 100% correct.
In a nutshell, ToE as an approach relies on the following 3 factors,
1) Evidence presented
2) Human brains to interpret those evidence
3) New kind of knowledge emerged (ancient ToE relies only on the fossils, now DNA is available
So, when is the time a "truth" can be determined and finalized?!
1) when all the evidence are found, because new evidence may still refute previous findings.
2) when humans minds no longer evolve, because the whole thing relies heavily on how those evidence are interpretated, better minds can give out better explanation, theoretically speaking.
3) when all human knowledge are available
So when you obtain the "most proper explanation" it will be the end of days. :yes: And even by then, that only gives the 'best explanation' in human history, still not necessarily the truth itself.
The evidence-human brain explanation-result can stil work efficiently in human society to approach truth, such as human legal system employs such an approach. But unlike science, it never guarrantee truth as science relies heavily on the discovery of natural rules instead of evidence.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
newhope: When you say things like "Evolution is only a theory," you betray your ignorance. That's O.K., we're all ignorant of many things. It's a chance to demonstrate your character. Are you open to having your ignorance corrected, and learning, or do you deny it and persist? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you doubt me, just say so, and I will be happy to provide cites for anything I say.
In science, a theory is a specialized term. It means the highest level of scientific certainty, a complete explanation for an entire set of questions, that is supported by the evidence, and explains everything we observe. Other theories include heliocentrism (the Theory that the earth revolves around the sun), germs, gravity, atoms. These are all theories. So the Theory of Evolution is a complete explanation accepted by the consensus of biologists that explains how we get new species and why they are so adapted to their environment.
Facts are not higher than theories; theories include facts and the relationships between them.
So basically, when you say or imply that evolution is "only a theory," you make an elementary error that you want to avoid.
Second, science is not about proof; it's about evidence. So the only relevant question is what the evidence shows. Again, it's a newbie mistake to ask for "proof" of a scientific concept.
Trying to help you here.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Neanderthals are in the 98-99% range.
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
Science produces data. This data is then hypothesised on. It is the hypthesis that can be flawed. However there is info on Wikepedia about "Mitochondrial Eve". From the mouths of scientists "a common ancestor around 5000 years ago. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5000 years, even for people born on different continents.
Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no descendents or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.
It doesn't realy matter how God made man. Common ancestors around 5 thousand years ago supports the notion that there may have been divine intervention at that time as is indicated in the bible. Genesis was never meant to be a genetics class. The story goes man was made around 6 thousand years ago but then came the flood and washed them all away. So good on ya scientists, I think maybe you got it right!
Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no descendents or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.
It doesn't realy matter how God made man. Common ancestors around 5 thousand years ago supports the notion that there may have been divine intervention at that time as is indicated in the bible. Genesis was never meant to be a genetics class. The story goes man was made around 6 thousand years ago but then came the flood and washed them all away. So good on ya scientists, I think maybe you got it right!
Last edited:
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
Mitochondrial Eve is actually estimated to have been about 200k years ago, but now i'm just nitpicking.
You are correct, it is possible that God reached down and aligned things so that there would be only one human race with a single mother. I happen to not share that point of view, as i don't believe in any gods, but it is completely valid and does not work against evolutionary theory.
This is what we mean when we say that evolution and religion can co-exist. You can continue to take the perspsective that your deity of choice is the invisible guiding hand behind the universe, and science will continue to work at the understanding the miraculous ways he brought things to be the way they are.
You are correct, it is possible that God reached down and aligned things so that there would be only one human race with a single mother. I happen to not share that point of view, as i don't believe in any gods, but it is completely valid and does not work against evolutionary theory.
This is what we mean when we say that evolution and religion can co-exist. You can continue to take the perspsective that your deity of choice is the invisible guiding hand behind the universe, and science will continue to work at the understanding the miraculous ways he brought things to be the way they are.
RedOne77
Active Member
From the mouths of real scientists: "Phylogenetic analysis by maximum parsimony suggested that all modern mtDNAs could be traced to a single individual, known as African Eve, who lived in Africa about 200,000 thousand years ago." Molecular biology and human diversity - Google Books
Found on page 2.
So do think God made Adam out of dirt?Or did He do it through divine intervention of an already living organism, perhaps H. Heidelbergensis? Or does it just not matter?
newhope101
Active Member
Regardless of when the Mitochondrial Eve or Adam was about the point I am making is that the science that so many hold as God has itself proclaimed a common ancestor around 5000 years ago. This is line with bible teaching. So nit pic all you wish on side points... there you have it.
All animals are all made from the elements that can be found on the earth, there's nothing magic about humans.
I see you made no refute of the substance of my point.
As for H. Heidelbergensis, who or whatever that is, thank God someone or something was able to create life because scientists have never been able to do it!
It is difficult to refute genetics from a lay mans terms. We rely on the hypothesis of data that scientists come up with. And from the mouth of science a common ancestor around 5000 years ago is fantastic for those that believe in the inspiration of the bible as a whole. Maybe 5000 years ago mutant apes got it together to make us. That's no more a ridulous scenario than believing in creation.
Those of you that see yourselves as knowledgeable enough to dispute this finding feel free.
All animals are all made from the elements that can be found on the earth, there's nothing magic about humans.
I see you made no refute of the substance of my point.
As for H. Heidelbergensis, who or whatever that is, thank God someone or something was able to create life because scientists have never been able to do it!
It is difficult to refute genetics from a lay mans terms. We rely on the hypothesis of data that scientists come up with. And from the mouth of science a common ancestor around 5000 years ago is fantastic for those that believe in the inspiration of the bible as a whole. Maybe 5000 years ago mutant apes got it together to make us. That's no more a ridulous scenario than believing in creation.
Those of you that see yourselves as knowledgeable enough to dispute this finding feel free.
Last edited: